Rfk drops ball

[BPPLEE]

I guess this might highlight a possible divide between the US and the UK. One seems to place greater store in the appearance of the speaker as opposed to what they actually say.

It's about representation. Would you buy a diet plan from an obese person?

 

[stevil]

Hey, if other people can have their own shallow, myopic, single-metric redline issues with regards to health (and ignore every other part), then why can't I?

Is an overweight person trying to stop lifesaving medicine from being available to the population? Are they trying to stop life saving medicines from being researched and developed?

Really?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

His personal position here isnt just about his own personal behavior. Its about what he thinks is real and what isnt. We should presume that a person's sense of reality guides their policy positions.

So then you see the potential issues people had with Rachel Levine being put in a high-ranking healthcare position then.

 

[durangodawood]

So then you see the potential issues people had with Rachel Levine being put in a high-ranking healthcare position then.

We dont need to rehash trans arguments for the millionth time to grasp the problem with RFK.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Is an overweight person trying to stop lifesaving medicine from being available to the population? Are they trying to stop life saving medicines from being researched and developed?

Really?

An obese person certainly has a higher propensity to want to rely on medications instead of encouraging a healthier lifestyle since that's their "lived experience".

Sorry, but nobody is going to take "you need to follow these dietary and exercise guidelines I'm providing" advice from a person who's 375 pounds and gets winded walking up a flight of stairs...they're just not.

 

[stevil]

An obese person certainly has a higher propensity to want to rely on medications instead of encouraging a healthier lifestyle since that's their "lived experience".

Sorry, but nobody is going to take "you need to follow these dietary and exercise guidelines I'm providing" advice from a person who's 375 pounds and gets winded walking up a flight of stairs...they're just not.

I don't think the head of HHS is a dietary or nutrition adviser.
Keep going with your Fat Shaming, though. It's good to see people come out with their true colours.

 

[stevil]

We dont need to rehash trans arguments for the millionth to grasp the problem with RFK.

The correct categorisation for this line of argument is "Deflection".
Typically used when the most direct and honest approach doesn't work in ones favour.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We dont need to rehash trans arguments for the millionth to grasp the problem with RFK.

You introduced "sense of reality" into the conversation, not me.

RFK Jr. thinks vaccines cause autism, that's not real
Levine thinks they're a woman, that's not real

The score's all tied up at 1-1

As I noted, RFK Jr. is wrong about something that could kill a few dozen people in a month in a worst-case scenario.

But he's right about things that are killing thousands of people per week (diet-related obesity and chronic diseases)

 

[durangodawood]

You introduced "sense of reality" into the conversation, not me.

RFK Jr. thinks vaccines cause autism, that's not real
Levine thinks they're a woman, that's not real

The score's all tied up at 1-1

As I noted, RFK Jr. is wrong about something that could kill a few dozen people in a month in a worst-case scenario.

But he's right about things that are killing thousands of people per week (diet-related obesity and chronic diseases)

The discussion is about RFK. His sense of reality is central to this. You can make a judgement about him without reference to various other people.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Keep going with your Fat Shaming, though. It's good to see people come out with their true colours.

That's how I can tell someone is not serious about the conversation, and are merely using RFK Jr's vaccine stances as the low hanging fruit.

"Fat shaming" is a made-up concept by people who are even more anti-scientific than anti-vaxxers.

It's a way people give themselves victimization status rather than acknowledging that they have a problem that's their own fault, and that will take some effort and will-power to fix.

Anytime someone tosses "fat shaming" into a conversation.

Swap that out for "smoker shaming" (another major public health issue) and see if any of the arguments and rationales still hold water.

"Doctors shouldn't lecture them about their smoking, because then that'll just make them less likely to go see doctors"
"People shouldn't point out how unhealthy smoking is to smokers, because it'll just make them feel ostracized and make it even harder for them to quit smoking"
"Having seating at restaurants and on airplanes that caters specifically to non-smokers isn't fair because it makes smokers feel like second class citizens"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The discussion is about RFK. His sense of reality is central to this. You can make a judgement about him without reference to various other people.

I've already made my judgements about him.

He's very wrong about a thing (measles vaccine hesitancy) that could get dozens of people killed.

But he's right about the things that are killing thousands of people per week (that most other health officials have neglected to talk about).

 

[durangodawood]

I've already made my judgements about him.

He's very wrong about a thing (measles vaccine hesitancy) that could get dozens of people killed.

But he's right about the things that are killing thousands of people per week (that most other health officials have neglected to talk about).

The way he's wrong makes me question the stability of his commitment to things he happens to get right. He is obviously epistemologically deficient.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The way he's wrong makes me question the stability of his commitment to things he happens to get right. He is obviously epistemologically deficient.

Be that as it may...

Several previous administrations have had every ample opportunity to pick someone who focuses more on pharmaceutical industry capture, food additives (that are already banned in many other countries), and getting rid of some of the junk food. They've neglected to do so.

In fact, all we've gotten from previous USDA/HHS departments are flawed pyramids, outdated recommendations, and the occasional egg flip-flop.

It's not the fault of the US voters that the only appointed health official to talk about those things in the past 30 years is an anti-vaxxer.

Both parties' establishment wings have had ample opportunities to get out in front of this one.

While the establishment wing of the two parties has been focused on either making appointments based on checking a box on a demographic checklist (for the democrats), or picking corporate cronies (for the republicans), either faction could've picked someone who's both pro-vaccine and talking about some of these things.

 

[stevil]

That's how I can tell someone is not serious about the conversation, and are merely using RFK Jr's vaccine stances as the low hanging fruit.

"Fat shaming" is a made-up concept by people who are even more anti-scientific than anti-vaxxers.

It's a way people give themselves victimization status rather than acknowledging that they have a problem that's their own fault, and that will take some effort and will-power to fix.

Your equivalence is so bad. No one would complain about a head of HHS that is a smoker, or is unfit, or isn't beautiful enough, or doesn't have 6 pack abs or is overweight, or has some medical issue like diabetes, or asthma or whatever.


Trying to put being personally overweight on the same scale of a dangerous appointee to head of HSS as having an anti-vaxxer is just mind boggling.

What kind of danger does an overweight head of HHS present? Are they going to ban healthy foods?

 

[durangodawood]

Be that as it may...

Several previous administrations have had every ample opportunity to pick someone who focuses more on pharmaceutical industry capture, food additives (that are already banned in many other countries), and getting rid of some of the junk food. They've neglected to do so.

In fact, all we've gotten from previous USDA/HHS departments are flawed pyramids, outdated recommendations, and the occasional egg flip-flop.

It's not the fault of the US voters that the only appointed health official to talk about those things in the past 30 years is an anti-vaxxer.

Both parties' establishment wings have had ample opportunities to get out in front of this one.

While the establishment wing of the two parties has been focused on either making appointments based on checking a box on a demographic checklist (for the democrats), or picking corporate cronies (for the republicans), either faction could've picked someone who's both pro-vaccine and talking about some of these things.

I will believe RFK can make a difference on those things when I see it.

For one, will Trump allow it once he's pressured by the interests involved. For two, will RFK himself be swayed by whatever half baked rationales those industries throw up. He seems kind of vibe or woo driven.

 

[probinson]

The major flaw in the discussion around vaccines is the false dichotomy that one is either "pro-vaccine" or "anti-vaccine". In reality, the discssion is (or should be) far more nuanced than that.

If we want to restore trust in vaccination, we must move beyond the binary thinking of "pro-vaccine" versus "anti-vaccine" and instead foster a more open, evidence-based discussion about their benefits and harms.​

​

Acknowledging the complexity of vaccines—both their intended and unintended effects, positive and negative—is the only way to ensure public health policies truly serve the best interests of all.​

​

The hidden effects of vaccines

Top vaccine researcher discusses the long-ignored harms of vaccines, calling for a complete overhaul of global vaccination policies.

blog.maryannedemasi.com

​

 

[stevil]

The major flaw in the discussion around vaccines is the false dichotomy that one is either "pro-vaccine" or "anti-vaccine". In reality, the discssion is (or should be) far more nuanced than that.

As far as I understand it, as with all medicine, the drug industry is regulated such that they have to disclose what side effects might be caused by taking the medicine.
Nothing is 100% safe. But doing nothing isn't 100% safe either.
So people make choices.

Anti Vaxxers say stuff like "no vaccine is safe and effective", or promote debunked conspiracies such as "vaccines cause autism" or "In fact, COVID-19 — there is an argument that it is ethnically targeted." or

After Maher followed up with a question about the protection vaccines provide against severe COVID-19, Kennedy said, “My belief about that is there is no advantage to the vaccine.”.


Could you imagine what would happen in USA if there is a new novel virus pandemic? Kennedy would probably be against development of a vaccine, would deny its efficacy, would try very hard to stop it being released to the public, would try not to give government money towards getting people vaccinated. How many more people would have died in USA if the Covid vaccination hadn't been made available.

 

[BPPLEE]

Is an overweight person trying to stop lifesaving medicine from being available to the population? Are they trying to stop life saving medicines from being researched and developed?

Really?

I thought he said there wasn't enough research

 

[probinson]

As far as I understand it, as with all medicine, the drug industry is regulated such that they have to disclose what side effects might be caused by taking the medicine.

That's the way it should be. But then all of those potential adverse events are brushed off into the "rare" category, which is all well and good until you experience one of the "rare" adverse events. Then you're on your own.

Nothing is 100% safe. But doing nothing isn't 100% safe either.
So people make choices.

Yes. That's the way it should be. We used to call that "informed consent".

Anti Vaxxers say stuff like "no vaccine is safe and effective", or promote debunked conspiracies such as "vaccines cause autism" or "In fact, COVID-19 — there is an argument that it is ethnically targeted." or

After Maher followed up with a question about the protection vaccines provide against severe COVID-19, Kennedy said, “My belief about that is there is no advantage to the vaccine.”.

I mostly agree with that. Trying to equate the importance of COVID vaccines with the importance of MMR was remarkably foolish. At best, the COVID vaccines provide minimal, transient benefit to most people. The exception might be those that were very elderly and/or immunocompromised people. But there was never any justification for mandating it on healthy college-age students, and that mandate has caused immense and justifiable damage to trust in public health authorities.

How many more people would have died in USA if the Covid vaccination hadn't been made available.

Probably not nearly as many as you think.

 

[DaisyDay]

It’s why I work out of my windowless basement.

Psst! Radon...seal up all the cracks and wrap your house in heavy duty Saranwrap.